Bowers v. Hardwick goes the other way. Effects on the LGBT rights movement?

Say, that, Judge Lewis Powell votes the other way and thus all sodomy laws in the USA are struck down in 1986. How does this effect the LGBT rights movement? Is it possible for the most liberal/progressive states to allow same-sex marriage in the late 90s?
 
Say, that, Judge Lewis Powell votes the other way and thus all sodomy laws in the USA are struck down in 1986. How does this effect the LGBT rights movement? Is it possible for the most liberal/progressive states to allow same-sex marriage in the late 90s?
There would definitely be some issues at first regarding marriages though I figure with the Reagan dominance, it'd make things troublesome.

On the other hand, someone smart could influence it and point out the ridiculousness of how the Republicans are trying to control people's lives.
 
Maybe. Expect a huge backlash from the religious right, especially with AIDS still being a death sentence at this point. I expect a constitutional amendment pushed for anything from undoing the decision to undoing Roe v Wade to a full-on attempt at Handmaid’s Tale-style control.

But when AIDS starts to taper off in the 90s, a lot of people will chalk it up to the decision, and the 2000s will be a bit less hostile toward the LGBT crowd.
 
Religious right more freaked out in the 80s to 00s, but ends up burning out earlier than OTL.

Going by changes in attitudes post-2003's ruling OTL OTL expect Hawaii's gay marriage ruling to stick, with other areas following in time. Say gay marriage by 2007 or 2008 ttl. Earlier denormalization of anti-gay marriage, "pro-life"* atttiudes than otl. too many baby boomers, even with attitude shifts to make being anti-gay marriage or to a lesser extent anti-abortion in 2019 the equivelant of being openly for segregation in 1980 but we'd be closer to that than otl by now.

one odd butterfly: expect conservatives to try using insurers to deter being homosexual, citing AIDS. Expect this to backfire and lead to smokers/heavy drinkers getting to use it to get less rate hikes for a while.

* It's the social cons tying all the sex/moral issues in one basket not me.
 
Maybe. Expect a huge backlash from the religious right, especially with AIDS still being a death sentence at this point. I expect a constitutional amendment pushed for anything from undoing the decision to undoing Roe v Wade to a full-on attempt at Handmaid’s Tale-style control.

But when AIDS starts to taper off in the 90s, a lot of people will chalk it up to the decision, and the 2000s will be a bit less hostile toward the LGBT crowd.
In https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-flipped-bowers-v-hardwick.324775/#post-10795218, David T makes a good argument against the backlash hypothesis.
 
You would be moving the impact of Lawrence v. Texas back 17 years. As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, I'm not sure how much faster it could have evolved. As late as 2004, both presidential candidates, along with Senate candidate Barack Obama shared a similar stand: same-sex unions deserve better recognition, but to call them marriages is a bit of a stretch (or shock). As we know, attitudes changed rapidly as Obama updated his stand five years later.

I have never seen many details on the repeal of sodomy laws. Being gay was illegal in all 50 states in 1960, and sill illegal everywhere except Illinois when the Stonewall Riots came to New York in 1969. And when Lawrence came in 2003, there were only about 13 or 16 states left.
 
You would be moving the impact of Lawrence v. Texas back 17 years. As far as same-sex marriage is concerned, I'm not sure how much faster it could have evolved. As late as 2004, both presidential candidates, along with Senate candidate Barack Obama shared a similar stand: same-sex unions deserve better recognition, but to call them marriages is a bit of a stretch (or shock). As we know, attitudes changed rapidly as Obama updated his stand five years later.

I have never seen many details on the repeal of sodomy laws. Being gay was illegal in all 50 states in 1960, and sill illegal everywhere except Illinois when the Stonewall Riots came to New York in 1969. And when Lawrence came in 2003, there were only about 13 or 16 states left.
Thing is, as David T said in 2015, at the time of Bowers v. Hardwick, about half of the states had repealed their sodomy laws, and in some other states, the sodomy laws were very rarely enforced when both partners were adults. Also, you are talking about federal politics, what I'm talking about is the most liberal states, like those of New England, allowing same-sex marriage in the late 90s.
 
Last edited:
It definitely does put a burr in the religious right's butt. I agree the backlash in 1986 is nothing like the backlash a generation earlier. There was a recent thread where someone posited a court ruling in the 1960s and that certainly felt like it had the potential for a backlash that would set the cause back quite a bit.

In 1986 it's not going to be a picnic, but the national mood isn't going to be up for a constitutional amendment enforcing a social norm in the 80s.

I wonder...does anyone see the French option (or something like it) becoming a more popular solution here? You have a civil state of partnership for the purposes of record-keeping and government benefits, and then the state gets out of the "marriage" game altogether and leaves it to religion. You could register your religious ceremony as a type of state partnership. Not sure if that's allowed in France, but it would probably be a good idea in the US, to keep religion from feeling like it's being pushed into the background too much.

Just an idea. I can see people looking for a compromise that "saves" marriage without doing too much social engineering turning to this. And that includes a lot of the remaining moderate Republicans.
 
Maybe. Expect a huge backlash from the religious right, especially with AIDS still being a death sentence at this point. I expect a constitutional amendment pushed for anything from undoing the decision to undoing Roe v Wade to a full-on attempt at Handmaid’s Tale-style control.

But when AIDS starts to taper off in the 90s, a lot of people will chalk it up to the decision, and the 2000s will be a bit less hostile toward the LGBT crowd.
Thing is, as David T said in 2015, at the time of Bowers v. Hardwick, about half of the states had repealed their sodomy laws, and in some other states, the sodomy laws were very rarely enforced when both partners were adults. It would be very different from Roe v. Wade, which stroke down abortion laws in all state, even, in, those that had somewhat liberalized them, in the previous years.
It seems very implausible to me for anyone to even try to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse this timeline's reverse Bowers v. Hardwick.
 
Last edited:
Thing is, as David T said in 2015, at the time of Bowers v. Hardwick, about half of the states had repealed their sodomy laws, and in some other states, the sodomy laws were very rarely enforced when both partners were adults. It would be very different from Roe v. Wade, which stroke down abortion laws in all state, even, in, those that had somewhat liberalized them, in the previous years.
It seems very implausible to me for anyone to even try to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse this timeline's reverse Bowers v. Hardwick.
I think they will definitely try, and they might even pass the first hurdle (2/3rds approval in congress). To me the most likely outcomes of a congressional vote in descending order are:
1) Too many abstentions to pass.
2) Amendment is approved.
3) Amendment is voted down.

But there's no way 3/4ths of state legislatures are going to even take up the question. Many will likely not schedule the vote. But again, very few- possibly none- will schedule the vote with the express purpose of voting it down.
 
I think they will definitely try, and they might even pass the first hurdle (2/3rds approval in congress). To me the most likely outcomes of a congressional vote in descending order are:
1) Too many abstentions to pass.
2) Amendment is approved.
3) Amendment is voted down.

But there's no way 3/4ths of state legislatures are going to even take up the question. Many will likely not schedule the vote. But again, very few- possibly none- will schedule the vote with the express purpose of voting it down.
How come there was no constitutional amendment to reverse Roe v. Wade, which was far more controversial? Also, polls show, that, at the time, of Bowers v. Hardwick, at least a plurality of Americans already supported legalizing homosexuality. It would be foolish for any politician to try.
 
Thing is, as David T said in 2015, at the time of Bowers v. Hardwick, about half of the states had repealed their sodomy laws, and in some other states, the sodomy laws were very rarely enforced when both partners were adults. Also, you are talking about federal politics, what I'm talking about is the most liberal states, like those of New England, allowing same-sex marriage in the late 90s.
Marriage creates a joint entity in terms of taxes, inheritance, spousal benefits; and the sooner states start legalizing same-sex marriage, the pressure will be on to make the rules nationwide. So yes, the sooner same-sex marriage comes to New England, the sooner it will become federal, but probably not a year-for-year gain.
 
It definitely does put a burr in the religious right's butt. I agree the backlash in 1986 is nothing like the backlash a generation earlier. There was a recent thread where someone posited a court ruling in the 1960s and that certainly felt like it had the potential for a backlash that would set the cause back quite a bit.

In 1986 it's not going to be a picnic, but the national mood isn't going to be up for a constitutional amendment enforcing a social norm in the 80s.

I wonder...does anyone see the French option (or something like it) becoming a more popular solution here? You have a civil state of partnership for the purposes of record-keeping and government benefits, and then the state gets out of the "marriage" game altogether and leaves it to religion. You could register your religious ceremony as a type of state partnership. Not sure if that's allowed in France, but it would probably be a good idea in the US, to keep religion from feeling like it's being pushed into the background too much.

Just an idea. I can see people looking for a compromise that "saves" marriage without doing too much social engineering turning to this. And that includes a lot of the remaining moderate Republicans.
What thread, regarding a court ruling in the 1960s, are you refering to?
 
How come there was no constitutional amendment to reverse Roe v. Wade, which was far more controversial? Also, polls show, that, at the time, of Bowers v. Hardwick, at least a plurality of Americans already supported legalizing homosexuality. It would be foolish for any politician to try.
Roe v. Wade was more controversial because Roe v. Wade was...for lack of a better term, successful. The court case changed the law. IOTL Bowers v. Hardwick didn't change the law, so of course it was less controversial IOTL. But we're talking about a what-if where the law is changed, it's an entirely different matter.

Abortion access has a strong built-in constituency going back quite a while. Gay rights not so much. DOMA was enacted a decade after this POD in 1996. If there were clear indications that an amendment had been needed, they would have attempted an amendment. And that's only more true ten years earlier with organized support for gay rights only just approaching the status of a national issue.
 
Roe v. Wade was more controversial because Roe v. Wade was...for lack of a better term, successful. The court case changed the law. IOTL Bowers v. Hardwick didn't change the law, so of course it was less controversial IOTL. But we're talking about a what-if where the law is changed, it's an entirely different matter.

Abortion access has a strong built-in constituency going back quite a while. Gay rights not so much. DOMA was enacted a decade after this POD in 1996. If there were clear indications that an amendment had been needed, they would have attempted an amendment. And that's only more true ten years earlier with organized support for gay rights only just approaching the status of a national issue.
There is a pretty big difference between legalizing same-sex marriage and legalizing homosexuality. As I said, Gallup polls showed, that, at the time of Bowers. v. Hardwick, at least, a plurality of Americans already supported legalizing homosexuality. Also, IMO, it's far easier to make a case against abortion than to make a case against homosexuality.
 
There is a pretty big difference between legalizing same-sex marriage and legalizing homosexuality. As I said, Gallup polls showed, that, at the time of Bowers. v. Hardwick, at least, a plurality of Americans already supported legalizing homosexuality. Also, IMO, it's far easier to make a case against abortion than to make a case against homosexuality.
I really must apologize, my wires are all crossed, I have no excuse. This was me not paying close attention, NOT me saying legalizing gay marriage is the same as legalizing gay.
 
Moreover I think under these circumstances your timeline for legalized gay marriage in a few states by the late 90s tracks well.
 
I really must apologize, my wires are all crossed, I have no excuse. This was me not paying close attention, NOT me saying legalizing gay marriage is the same as legalizing gay.
I didn't say, that, you thought, that, legalizing same-sex marriage was the same as legalizing homosexuality. I meant, that, the DOMA comparison is wrong. In fact, in this timeline, there may never be a DOMA.
 
Top